clickup_get_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the default compact response shape (large sections as counts, e.g. custom_fields_count: 3) and the expansion mechanism, which is real behavioral context beyond the parameter names. It doesn't cover permissions/auth for private tasks or error behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core operation and default response behavior, then parameter guidance, then the URL caveat. It is dense and lengthy but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the URL disambiguation sentence is long but prevents a real misfire.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a compact-by-default response, the description must explain what comes back — and it does (core fields always included, sections as counts, 10k truncation noted in schema). Minor gaps remain around access/permission failures and pagination, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents include, task_id, workspace_id, and expand_statuses richly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning on top: it shows a concrete include example and ties expand_statuses to update_task, which helps the agent choose values rather than just describe them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (ClickUp task by ID) with scope details (custom IDs like 'DEV-1234'). It explicitly disambiguates from clickup_get_chat_message_replies for chat-thread URLs, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each optional parameter: use include for full sections, expand_statuses=true to discover valid statuses for update_task, and a URL disambiguation rule routing chat-thread URLs to another tool. This covers both selection and invocation context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.